OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

Intel Core i7 8650U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£360PassMark benchmark result:6187N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:FCBGA1356TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

Intel Core i7 8650U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.5

Overall score

Score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Score components

90%

4.5

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 77% of processors
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components

60%

3.7

Performance

18%

4.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 72% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £360

Best rankings

Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor Intel Core i7 8650U

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Score components:

60%

3.7

Performance

18%

4.9

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.9

Power & Thermal

4%

7.4

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated Graphics

4.5
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
Intel Core i7 8650U has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 86% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Overall score

40%

8.6

Price

5.7
Brand name
Intel
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FCBGA1356
CPU socket
FCBGA1356
â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
This processor uses the FCBGA1356 CPU socket, which is older than that of 88.4% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
â–¼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.2 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
4.2 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.2 GHz which is lower than that of 51.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.9 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 1.9 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x1.9 GHz which is lower than that of 75.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
Foundry
Intel 14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
This processor is built on the Intel 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 55.2% of processors and equal to that of 29.3% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
L3 cache
8 MB
â–¼ Worse than 49% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 39.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.8% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
L2 cache
1 MB
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 66.9% of processors and equal to that of 17.7% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR3
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR3
â–² Better than 58% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR3, which is newer than that of 58% of processors and equal to that of 2.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,133 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,133 MHz, which is lower than that of 75.5% of processors and equal to 8.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 620
Integrated GPU model
Intel UHD Graphics 620
â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
This processor uses the Intel UHD Graphics 620 integrated GPU, which is less advanced than that in 55.8% of processors and equal to that in 1.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
24
Integrated GPU execution units
24
â–² Better than 49% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 24 GPU execution units, which is more than 49.3% of processors and equal to 21.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
Tau (power duration limit)
28 seconds
â–¼ Worse than 10% of models
Market range: <8 seconds – >28 seconds
This processor has a turbo duration of 28 seconds which is longer than that of 3.4% of processors and equal to that of 86.1% of processors.
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

Intel Core i7 8650U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.4x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,469.99
    â–² Better than 76% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,470 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,469.99 vs 334.1
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 81.1% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    702.11
    â–² Better than 76% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (702.1 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    702.11 vs 387.66
  • 30.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    123 mm²
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (123 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    123 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR3
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard
    â–² Better than 57% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, SGX, TXT, MPX, OS Guard, Boot Guard vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 4.4x faster classroom rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    1,469.99
    â–² Better than 76% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (1,470 vs 334.1). The average processor needs 334.1 for the Blender Classroom test.
    1,469.99 vs 334.1
  • 81.1% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    702.11
    â–² Better than 76% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (702.1 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    702.11 vs 387.66
  • 30.5% smaller die size
    Die size
    123 mm²
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (123 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    123 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 16.7% more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    2 MB/core
    â–² Better than 52% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR3
    â–² Better than 58% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR3 vs DDR4
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 53.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,299
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,299 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,299 vs 2,791
  • 41.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,187
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,187 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,187 vs 10,572.5
  • 25.4% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    365
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (365 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    365 vs 489
  • 16.1% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2098
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2098 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,098 vs 2,500
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 15% worse value for money
    Intel Core i7 8650U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.71 vs 6.6).
    5.71 vs 6.56
  • 44% more expensive
    Intel Core i7 8650U is more expensive than the average processor (£360 vs £250).
    £360 vs £250
  • Older CPU socket
    CPU socket
    FCBGA1356
    â–¼ Worse than 88% of models
    This processor uses an older CPU socket than the average processor (FCBGA1356 vs FP4).
    FCBGA1356 vs FP4
  • 3 years older release date
    Release date
    2017
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    August 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 53.5% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,299
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,299 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,299 vs 2,791
  • 41.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,187
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,187 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,187 vs 10,572.5
  • 25.4% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    365
    â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (365 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    365 vs 489
  • 16.1% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2098
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2098 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,098 vs 2,500
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 1.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 76% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x1.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x1.9 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 21.2% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,806
    â–¼ Worse than 56% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,806 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,806 vs 4,829
  • 50% lower bus speed
    Bus speed
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GT/s – >8 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus speed than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor runs at bus speed of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 2.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    4.2 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    4.2 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 9 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    19
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (19 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    19 vs 28
  • 5.3% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,393
    â–¼ Worse than 54% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,393 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,393 vs 1,471
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 50% less L2 per core
    L2 per core
    0.25 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/core
    This processor has less L2 cache per core than the average processor (0.3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    0.25 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 60% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    1 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    1 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    12
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    12 vs 16
  • 27.3% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,133 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2133 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,133 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x4, x2/x2, x2/x1/x1, x1/x1/x1/x1 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    37.5 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (37.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    37.5 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

L
laptopmedia.com
06/04/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8650U vs Intel Core i7-8550U - LaptopMedia Are you looking for benchmark results for a specific laptop model using this processor, or do...
C
cpubenchmark.net
21/08/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8650U @ 1.90GHz - CPU Benchmarks
L
laptopmedia.com
19/11/2018
Summary of the review
All our articles with core i7-8650u tag
L
laptopmedia.com
04/12/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-1065G7 vs i7-8650U - the new-gen CPU is the better choice
N
notebooks-und-mobiles.de
28/04/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8650U (Kaby Lake Refresh) Review
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
04/12/2019
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-1065G7 vs i7-8650U – the next-gen CPU is the better choice
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
08/05/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8650U vs Intel Core i5-8250U: Benchmarks and Performance Comparison
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
06/04/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8650U vs Intel Core i7-8550U
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
06/04/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8650U vs Intel Core i7-8550U - Benchmarks and comparison
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
21/08/2017
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8650U | LaptopMedia Italy
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
24/02/2019
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Laptop 2 review: A design statement, but for whom?
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
06/04/2018
Summary of the review
Intel Core i7-8650U vs Intel Core i7-8550U – Kaby Lake Refresh flagships go head-to-head
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
12/03/2019
Summary of the review
Apple iPad Pro (2018) vs. Samsung Galaxy Tab S4 vs. Microsoft Surface Pro 6 - What is the ideal high-end tablet? Battery life
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
04/07/2018
Summary of the review
HP ZBook x2 G4 Review: A 2-in-1 for Creative Professionals - Conclusion
(Translated)Show original
N
notebookcheck.nl
13/10/2019
Summary of the review
Dell Latitude 15 5500 Series - Notebookcheck.net (Including tests of the i7-8650U configuration)
(Translated)Show original
T
techzine.nl
05/04/2019
Summary of the review
Microsoft Surface Laptop 2 review: A top performer with one Achilles' heel
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about Intel Core i7 8650U

  • Efficient multitasking due to 4 cores and 8 threads compared to previous dual-core generations
  • Reliable performance for office work, web browsing, and everyday light tasks
  • Excellent for virtual machine performance and hardware virtualization
  • Energy-efficient design (15W TDP) which helps with laptop battery life
  • Good value for money when found in discounted or used business-grade laptops
  • High turbo boost frequency (up to 4.2 GHz) provides strong performance for short, bursty workloads

What we don't like about Intel Core i7 8650U

  • Poor performance for modern gaming due to the weak integrated UHD 620 graphics
  • Frequent thermal throttling issues in thin laptops, leading to significant clock speed drops under long loads
  • Significant heat output often causing fans to run loudly during intensive tasks
  • Starting to show its age for resource-heavy applications like 4K video rendering or 3D animation
  • Limited future-proofing due to lack of support for modern standards like Wi-Fi 6 or PCIe 4.0
  • Integrated GPU is significantly outperformed by newer Iris Plus and Iris Xe graphics solutions

Verdict

The Intel Core i7-8650U is a high-end, quad-core mobile processor from the 8th Generation Kaby Lake Refresh family, featuring 8 threads, an 8MB Smart Cache, and a 14nm lithography. It operates at a base frequency of 1.90 GHz with a maximum turbo boost of 4.20 GHz, while maintaining a low 15W TDP that is configurable up to 25W. Main pros include its significant 40% performance leap over previous dual-core generations, support for up to 32GB of DDR4-2400 memory, and enterprise-grade security via Intel vPro technology. However, its performance is highly dependent on the laptop's cooling solution, often leading to thermal throttling during sustained heavy workloads, and its integrated UHD Graphics 620 is now considered outdated for modern gaming or high-end creative tasks.

Compare Intel Core i7 8650U with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of Intel Core i7 8650U and other processors

No results found